Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNumérosXXVIIChroniques des travaux archéologi...The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark (Istanbul...

Chroniques des travaux archéologiques en Turquie 2018

The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark (Istanbul), 2016-2018: Excavation, Conservation, Cultural Heritage and Public Archaeology

Alessandra Ricci
p. 255-277

Texte intégral

The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark Project (KYAP) is run according to the formula of “ortak kazı” with the Direction of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums, Mrs. Zeynep S. Kızıltan (until March 2018) and Mr. Rahmi Asal (2018 season) and the scientific coordination of the author. For the 2016-2017 seasons we thank the Museums’ Director Mrs. Zeynep S. Kızıltan and Mrs. Asuman Denker for their constant support, and the General Directorate for Antiquities and Monuments for permission to work in the city of Istanbul. The author is responsible for the interpretation of the data here presented, unless otherwise indicated.
The 2016 excavation team was composed of: Zeynep S. Kızıltan (Istanbul Archeological Museums); Alessandra Ricci (Koç University); Asuman Denker (Istanbul Archeological Museums). Archaeologists: Berna Polat; E. E. Intagliata; Erdal Altınel; Marco Capardoni; Rick Wohmann; Tylor Wolford; Stephanie Sterling; Paolo Maranzana. Finds illustrator: Rahman Üske. Restorators: Taner Özgür; Öykü Bahar Haktanır; Cem Akbulut. Architects: Gül Aktürk; Mehmet Sinan Bermek; Varlık İndere; Chiara Vaccaro. Photographer: Domenico Ventura. Students: Alis Altınel; Ekin Baran Engin; Zekiye Tutal; Aydın Algül; Dilara Maçi; Işık Atay; Şeyma Özel; Zeynep Yılmaztürk. Public archaeology events coordinator: İlksen Baysaling. Project Manager: Esra Balcı. Assistant Project Manager: Çiçek Dereli. Philologist: Jeffrey Michael Featherstone. Art historians: Chiara Bordino; Silvia Pedone and five workmen. Funding for the 2016 season: ISTKA (Istanbul Development Agency); GABAM (Koç University, Stavros Niarchos Foundation Center for Late Antique and Byzantine Studies); FIAT-TOFAŞ and the Maltepe Municipality.
The 2017 excavation team was composed of: Zeynep S. Kızıltan (Istanbul Archeological Museums); Alessandra Ricci (Koç University); Asuman Denker (Istanbul Archeological Museums). Archeologists: Marco, Capardoni; Okan Doğuhan Aslaner. Archaeobotanist: Burhan Ulaş. Architects: Esra Balcı; Varlık İndere. Photographers: İlksen Baysaling; Domenico Ventura. Finds illustrator: Rahman Üske. Conservator: Taner Özgür; Cem Akbulut; Aysun Taşçı; Şuheda Korkmaz. Art historians: Anastasios Antonaras; Deniz Sever- Georgousakis; Eleni Barmparitsa; Jessica Varsallona. Conservation trainee: Fatma Kaya. Students: Erdem Yavuz; Özge Tokur; Nükte Esen; Oğuzhan Orhan; Sevde Kararmaz and 4 workmen. Funding for the season: GABAM (Koç University, Stavros Niarchos Foundation Center for Late Antique and Byzantine Studies); Dumbarton Oaks (Trustees of Harvard University); AKMED (The Koç University Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Centre for Mediterranean Civilizations) and the Maltepe Municipality.
The 2018 excavation team was composed of: Rahmi Asal (Istanbul Archeological Museums); Alessandra Ricci (Koç University); Mine Kıraz (Istanbul Archeological Museums). Archaeobotanist: Burhan Ulaş. Art historian: Deniz Sever- Georgousakis. Photographer: İlksen Baysaling. Architects: Beril Sulamacı; Görkem Günay; Students and 2 workmen. Funding for the season: GABAM (Koç University, Stavros Niarchos Foundation Center for Late Antique and Byzantine Studies).

Introduction

  • 1 For a recent summary of the complex’s chronological phases and interpretation, Ricci 2018: 347-376; (...)
  • 2 The coordinates for the site are: 40° 56´ 35.9556" and 29° 6´ 53.3484

1The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark is an urban archaeology project with chronologies currently ranging from the 5th century – a period that sees material remains at the site but no architectural testimonies – to the main construction phase of the monastic complex of Satyros, associated with the patronage of patriarch Ignatios and dating to the mid-9th century, and a continuation of the same in the late Byzantine period ending in the first decades of the 14th century1. The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark is located on the Asian side of Istanbul’s Greater Municipality and is part of the Maltepe Municipality (Fig. 1). The First Degree Protected Area – or 1. Derece Sit Alanı – within which the core of the surviving archaeological remains are located covers a medium-sized area of some 4,500/5,000 square meters2. Tucked between modern buildings in the Çınar neighborhood, north of the Çınar Camii, the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark Project represents the largest surviving archaeological area open to the public to date on Istanbul’s Asian side and one of the few non-rescue excavation projects in the city of Istanbul and its vicinities.

Fig. 1: Plan of the Asian suburbs of Constantinople in Byzantine times

Fig. 1: Plan of the Asian suburbs of Constantinople in Byzantine times

After: Janin 1964, Pl. XIII, redrawn by author

  • 3 The architectural project for the site was approved by the 5 No.lu Koruma Kurulu in May 2015, Ricci (...)

2The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark Project focuses primarily on archaeological inquiry propaedeutic to the creation of a sustainable urban archaeological park for the city of Istanbul. Therefore, all archaeological, conservation and public archaeology activities carried out during the seasons that will be presented here centered on the continuous implementation of the archaeological park project3. The presentation is organized in three sections. The first presents a summary of archaeological excavations at the site that took place between 2016 and 2018. These seasons focused on specific areas of the monastic platform, thus representing a cohesive program, and are therefore presented together. The second section centers on the conservation works and the methodological approach implemented. A separate section is devoted to the diversified range of public archaeology activities carried out at Küçükyalı and on cultural heritage methodologies implemented.

  • 4 The buildings are part of the ArkeoPark’s architectural project commissioned by Koç University to A(...)

3Further approval in 2015 by the 5 No.lu Koruma Kurulu (Board for the Protection of Monuments) for the architectural project at the ArkeoPark made it possible, where archaeological contingencies allowed, to proceed with construction of two lightweight, reversible wooden structures designated respectively as the Visitors, or Community Center Center and the Dig House and ArkeoPark Offices4. Since completion of these structures, placed at the western edges of the archaeological area, the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark has progressively become a catalyst for a diverse range of interested visitors and users, making public archaeology activities one of the central aspects of the project that extend well beyond the excavation season. In August 2018, Aksel Tibet paid a visit to the ArkeoPark and to the newly completed buildings. The ensuing exchanges about the two buildings and the impact they have on the public image of urban archaeology in Istanbul are vivid in the author’s memory. This contribution is dedicated to the memory of those conversations with Aksel Tibet at the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark.

Archaeological Excavations (2016-2018)

4The 2016-2018 excavation seasons centered on four specific areas located on the monastic platform, corresponding to the plot of land denominated as “Parsel 34” and within the boundaries of the 1st Degree Protected Area (Fig. 2-4). The first two areas centered on the two eastern corners of the platform and revealed information about the late phases of life at the monastery of Satyros. The other two areas concerned the ecclesiastical building, or monastic katholikon, whose remains are located above the underground cistern’s eastern portion. Work here focused on the excavation of the church’s interior and its northeastern external areas in order to progressively reveal the church’s floor plan, clarify its architectural and decorative features and investigate the Byzantine-period phases in the areas adjoining the church. The excavation’s methodology implemented in all areas followed a stratigraphical approach with documentation for each stratum of a US form (henceforth US) and for each architectural element a USM form (henceforth USM).

Fig. 2: Drone image of the complex at Küçükyalı - monastery of Satyros - and of its surroundings, 2017 season

Fig. 2: Drone image of the complex at Küçükyalı - monastery of Satyros - and of its surroundings, 2017 season

KYAP archives

Fig. 3: General plan of the complex at Küçükyalı - monastery of Satyros - as of 2018 excavation season

Fig. 3: General plan of the complex at Küçükyalı - monastery of Satyros - as of 2018 excavation season

Drawn by: A. Özsavaşcı for KYAP

Fig. 4: Plan of underground cistern, inflow channel to the east and platform’s retaining walls with buttressed corner towers, 2018 season

Fig. 4: Plan of underground cistern, inflow channel to the east and platform’s retaining walls with buttressed corner towers, 2018 season

Drawn by: A. Özsavaşcı for KYAP

1.1. “Platform Area” excavation: northeastern corner

  • 5 Dr. E. E. Intagliata headed the team working in this area with archaeologists B. Polat and P. Maran (...)

5This area corresponds to the northeastern corner of the monastic platform, where, during the 2015 excavation season, a late Byzantine phase of the complex began emerging (Ricci 2019: 91-92). Work, therefore, continued in quadrants I1-I3 in this area at the beginning of the 2016 season with lifting of the protective geotextile placed at the end of the earlier season5. The objectives of the excavation were to complete investigation of the latest detected phases of occupation of the monastic platform and to assess the arrangement of a visitors’ disabled access ramp as per the archaeological park’s architectural project.

Fig. 5: Plan of northeastern corner of the monastic platform. The orthophoto indicates the late Byzantine phase of the complex in this area with the location of the refuse disposal

Fig. 5: Plan of northeastern corner of the monastic platform. The orthophoto indicates the late Byzantine phase of the complex in this area with the location of the refuse disposal

2016 season, KYAP archives

6Work focused on exposing the remains of the porous calcareous floor identified in 2015 and completing excavation of the refuse disposal (US 1510), whose excavation was stopped at the end of the earlier season. Preliminary interpretation of the excavation in this area can be summarized as follows (Fig. 5):

  • The floor (US 1507 = USM 1514) extends into two squares – I2 and I3 – and is poorly preserved

  • The floor was probably portioned by a small wall (USM 1522) with very scant remains of it having survived. The wall was made by very irregularly cut and uncut stones, strong white mortar with small stones and occasional crushed bricks. This might have functioned as a partition between two loci.

  • The floor is not thick and sits on a preparatory layer (US1506). This layer is better preserved and consists of small- to medium-sized stones joined together by a compact greyish soil.

  • The preparatory layer (US 1506) is on top of the platform’s earth fill (US 1504), which is now proving to extend over all of the platform’s areas thus far excavated.

    • 6 For an in-depth discussion of this and other Günsenin IV amphorae excavated at the site, Günsenin a (...)

    A cut made in the floor was for the arrangement of the Günsenin IV amphora excavated in 2015 and placed here in secondary usage6.

  • To the east of the floor is the posthole excavated in 2015, hence this area might have been covered by a roof. The extension of the roof is not clear.

  • The area must have taken advantage of the earlier architectural features of the complex as for the northeastern portion of the platform’s retaining wall and the remains of the alleged tower excavated in 2015.

  • Excavation of the refuse disposal (US 1510) pottery as for Günsenin III and IV amphorae; amphorae stoppers; cooking ware as for an intact unglazed cooking post of the Middle or Late Byzantine periods (Fig. 6); Glazed White Wares IV (Wohmann 2018; Ricci and Wohmann [forthcoming]).

Fig. 6: Unglazed cooking pot found in the refuse disposal; archaeological context US 1510; after conservation and drawing

Fig. 6: Unglazed cooking pot found in the refuse disposal; archaeological context US 1510; after conservation and drawing

Drawn by: E. Pamukcu and M. Duggan, KYAP archives

7The proposed chronological range of the area investigated and at the end of two excavation seasons appears to fit between the 12th century and the early decades of the 14th century, when the area ceased to function. No traces of violent destruction were detected. At the end of the season, the area and the floor in particular were covered by a protective geotextile topped by a layer of earth. As for the historical contextualization of this phase, research indicates that life of the monastery of Satyros continued in the 12th century when, according to the typikon of the Pantokrator, Satyros became one of the monastic dependencies. The typikon does also indicate the number of monks at Satyros, eighteen making it the largest among all the Pantokrator’s dependencies (Jordan 2000: 753). It is likely that this community, which could count on produce from surrounding lands and good water resources, developed a productive area, the remains of which emerged in this area of the platform (Ricci 2018: 373-376; Ricci 2019b: 138).

1.2. Excavation of a Late Byzantine chamber in the southeastern corner of the platform

  • 7 A. Urcia headed the team working in this area in 2010.
  • 8 R. Wohmann headed the team working in this area with students E. Ekin Baran and S. Sterling.

8In the southeastern corner of the platform, excavation carried out in 2010 revealed the presence of a buttressed corner tower (6.5 x 6.5 m) (Fig. 3). At a later time in the life of the complex, leaning against the tower’s western wall and taking advantage of the inner side of the platform’s retaining wall, a small space or chamber was dug into the platform’s portico and the platform’s earth fill. The small-sized chamber was noted during the 2010 excavation season, is located in quadrants A3-A4 and, together with the tower, at the end of the season was covered by a temporary protective roof (Ricci 2012: 153-161)7. The 2016 season provided the opportunity to complete work in this area of the platform8. After removal of the roof and of the geotextile, it was possible to detect and excavate a well-preserved stratigraphical sequence of the space. Its cumbersome position and the partial collapse of the chamber’s northern wall (USM 1083) made operations in this area particularly complex. As noted, the chamber is rather small in size and, it was possible to ascertain its plan and perimeter with better precision. That is, a rectangular in plan space measuring ca. 1.3 x 5 m with a SW-NE orientation.

9The main objectives were to clearly establish its perimeter and to complete investigation of the stratigraphical sequence in order to formulate a hypothesis about its function and life span. Work carried out in this area may be summarized as follows:

  • A stratigraphical sequence of four major phases was detected (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7: Chamber in the southeastern corner of the monastic platform, stratigraphical sequence and section drawing of 2016 excavation

Fig. 7: Chamber in the southeastern corner of the monastic platform, stratigraphical sequence and section drawing of 2016 excavation

Drawn by: V. Indere and R. Wohmann, KYAP archives

  • Underneath the levels excavated in 2010, it was possible to detect an extremely well-preserved roof collapse (US 1074) with a high density of roof tiles (Figs. 8-9). A large number of them were preserved as a full profile.

Fig. 8: Chamber in the southeastern corner of the monastic platform: collapsed roof; collapsed northern wall and eastern segment of chamber with section of collapsed roof and wall

Fig. 8: Chamber in the southeastern corner of the monastic platform: collapsed roof; collapsed northern wall and eastern segment of chamber with section of collapsed roof and wall

Drawn by: V. Indere and R. Wohmann, 2016 season, KYAP archives

Fig. 9: Hypothetical reconstruction of chamber’s roof

Fig. 9: Hypothetical reconstruction of chamber’s roof

R. Whomann and A. Ricci, 2016 season, KYAP archives

  • Underneath the roof collapse was noted what has been interpreted as a discharge or refuse action (US 1202-1204) with predominantly Glazed White Wares IV, many of which were restored with their complete profiles; amphorae pieces; bronze and lead objects; glass fragments; marble sectilia and small-sized polychrome fresco fragments. US 1203 in segment 2 yielded among others a bone applique decorated with concentric rounds (Fig. 10). These layers are dated to the 12th - 13th century.

Fig. 10: Bone applique, chamber (US 1203- Seg. 2) after conservation

Fig. 10: Bone applique, chamber (US 1203- Seg. 2) after conservation

Conservation by: T. Özgür, photography by D. Ventura, KYAP archives

  • The last layer (US 1205) showed hardly any artefacts, and is associated with the platform’s earth fill, thus representing in this specific context the layer on which the chamber was built.

10As for the interpretation of the space, it is possible it may have functioned as a storage/deposit room in its initial phases of life. After the roof collapse (US 1074) the space was possibly used to conceal material originating from the nearby monastic church as for opus sectile floors, architectural sculpture and other objects that can now be associated with the ecclesiastical building. These more recent actions were excavated in 2010 and saw a phase of final abandonment now placed in the early decades of the 14th century. At the end of the 2016 season, a temporary conservation roofing system was built above the chamber.

Church area excavation

  • 9 The 2001-2004 survey season was conducted through permission from the General Directorate of Cultur (...)

11Excavation of the areas adjoining the church’s northern perimetral wall represent the third operational locus on the platform. During the 2014 campaign, investigation of the northwestern wall of the church led to the identification of its narthex (quadrants G8-G9; H8- H9) (Fig. 3, 11). The narthex’s remains showed signs of late Byzantine cult practices as for the presence of a rectangular-in-shape marble ossuarium -or, a secondary burial- and in the area immediately to the north of it (Ricci 2019a: 84-85; Ricci 2015: 184-187). Moreover, the 2001-2004 survey season indicated the presence of a masonry lateral entrance to the church located in quadrants H7-H8 and I6-I7, though it was never archaeologically investigated (Fig. 12)9. This lateral entrance has a symmetrical counterpart to the south of the church where more poorly preserved remains were documented during the same survey season.

Fig. 11: Drone image of the church (left) and of the western portion of the cistern (right) at the end of the 2017 excavation season

Fig. 11: Drone image of the church (left) and of the western portion of the cistern (right) at the end of the 2017 excavation season

KYAP archives

Fig. 12: Northern lateral entrance into the monastic church after removal of top layer

Fig. 12: Northern lateral entrance into the monastic church after removal of top layer

2016 season, KYAP archives

12It was decided therefore to focus archaeological operations on the northern area of the church with the purpose of exposing the church’s external wall and the better-preserved northern entrance. This allowed also to continue investigating the late Byzantine phases in these areas and to assess the structural relationship of the building’s foundations with the platform’s earth fill. From a stratigraphical point of view, this area showed a modern layer mixed with humus (US 1000), representing a rather pervasive layer documented elsewhere on the platform. Underneath it was recorded the presence of a first and somewhat disturbed archaeological layer. Following is a summary of the excavation’s outcome concerning the more archaeologically reliable layers and the structures that have emerged during the excavation:

  • A widespread layer of abandonment in this area (US 2602) showed high percentages of Byzantine amphorae (Günsenin IV) and lesser quantities of roof tiles and brick fragments. This corresponds to the abandonment of the site.

    • 10 I thank R. Wohmann for his report on the ceramics and for his work on the piece.

    Underneath this layer is a distinctively late Byzantine layer (US 2627) with amphorae fragments; late Byzantine pottery; small metal finds (lead seals; lead wickers holders; copper buttons and dress accessories). In quadrant H5 this layer showed visible traces of a productive refuse consisting of areas with a high percentage of burned wheat seeds; a fragment of a small-sized millstone; a rectangular-in-shape terracotta burner; a flintstone. A notable find in this area is an intact late Byzantine “Elaborate Incised Ware” small bowl, which can be dated between the mid-13th and late 14th century (Fig. 13)10.

Fig. 13: Church area: Elaborate Incised Ware bowl (US 1510), Late Byzantine

Fig. 13: Church area: Elaborate Incised Ware bowl (US 1510), Late Byzantine

2016 season, KYAP archives

    • 11 I am grateful to Dr. A. C. Antonaras (Museum of Byzantine Culture, Thessaloniki) for his work on th (...)

    Underneath this layer and disrupted by it, an earlier phase of usage of the area revealed the presence of at least two human skeletons (US 2612); other scattered human remains; sets of metal nails likely originating from wooden coffin(s) and vast quantities of glass fragments (circular window panes; several lamps’ bowls; beakers)(Fig. 14)11. The layer appears to be contemporaneous with the life of the church.

Fig. 14: Church area: Glass window pane (US 2612), Middle Byzantine (?), 2016 season

Fig. 14: Church area: Glass window pane (US 2612), Middle Byzantine (?), 2016 season

Conservation by: T. Özgür, reconstruction by A. Andonaras, KYAP archives

  • At the end of the 2016 excavation season, the same layer revealed a masonry burial (USM 2631) dug into the platform’s fill and leaning parallel against the church’s external wall (Q H5). The burial was likely sealed by marble slab(s), a fragment of which was retrieved above it, though not attached to the burial (Fig. 15, 16).

Fig. 15: Church area, masonry burial and Günsenin III amphora with cranial remains

Fig. 15: Church area, masonry burial and Günsenin III amphora with cranial remains

2018 season, KYAP archives

Fig. 16: Church area, plan of area with superimposed orthophoto of burial

Fig. 16: Church area, plan of area with superimposed orthophoto of burial

Drawing by: A. Özsavaşcı for KYAP

Fig. 17: Church area, the Günsenin III amphora with cranial remains prior removal

Fig. 17: Church area, the Günsenin III amphora with cranial remains prior removal

2018 season, KYAP archives

    • 12 Work was conducted by Dr. Burhan Ulaş (Malatya Inönü University).

    During the 2018 excavation season, it was possible to complete exposure and excavation of the masonry burial (USM 2631). Clearing of US 2650 allowed to expose the top of the masonry burial and to define its form. Archaeological evidence indicates that the burial was built after construction of the corner wall forming the northern entrance and after construction of the church’s northern wall. The burial is anthropomorphic in shape with a narrower semi-circular cavity for the head to the west (Marinis 2009: 63). It has a west-east orientation. The depth of the tomb was calculated to 0.55/57 m with a detected absence of the mortar floor whose traces are still visible at the edges of the wall (Fig. 18) Its fill (US 2661) was rather homogenous with very small percentages of ceramic and amphorae shards. On the other hand, the predominately dark color earth fill contained a very high percentage of archaebotanical material (US 2661). Some 100 liters of earth formed this US and underwent flotation (Fig. 19). A preliminary microscopic analysis of the material conducted by Burhan Ulaş revealed the presence of: wheat, linen and barley12. It is likely that the tomb may have been re-purposed at a later time in the life of the monastery as a silos and that it might have been connected with the late Byzantine productive areas identified at the northeastern corner of the platform.

Fig. 18: Church area, the masonry burial at the end of the excavation

Fig. 18: Church area, the masonry burial at the end of the excavation

Photo by: D. Ventura, KYAP archives

Fig. 19

Fig. 19

A-B-C-D: Soil samples obtained by means of a “judgement sampling” strategy were subject to flotation, using a “hand flotation” method, through sieves with 3 mm, > 0.5 mm and > 0.3 mm mesh. Samples were dried out to in a location not exposed to direct sun light. Subsequently the archaeobotanical samples are studied in the laboratory of the ALATA-Mersin horticultural institute and at archaeology laboratory of the Koç University. Some of the materials were also studied in the laboratory at the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark.
E-F-G: Preliminary results of the archaeobotanical studies carried out at the Küçükyalı site indicate a closed monastic economy, where the cultivation of agricultural food products, such as wheat (E-G), and flax (F) was dominant

A-D: Photo by: I. Baysaling and D. Ventura; Drawing by: R. Üske; E-G: Ulaş 2017

    • 13 I thank Prof. Dr. N. Günsenin for the identification of the amphora. For an updated discussion of t (...)
    • 14 I am grateful to Dr. Y. Yılmaz from Düzce University for her careful work and for the report. The t (...)

    Removal of US 2650 to the east of the masonry tomb continued during the 2018 season. The corner formed by the church’s northern wall and the northern apse’s buttress, had half a Günsenin III (GIII) amphora hidden in it (Fig. 14, 16)13. The amphora contained a partly preserved human cranial remain. The remain was extracted at the Istanbul Archaeological Museums at the end of the excavation season by Yasemin Yılmaz14. The GIII amphora provides with a tentative chronological framework between the 12th and the early 13th centuries for its production (Günsenin 2018: 100-102). Further research is needed in order to ascertain if around this period, the burial was dismantled with the cranial remains conserved inside the GIII and re-buried in a corner by the church’s apse.

    • 15 O. D. Aslaner headed the team working in this area.

    The northern entrance into the church was fully exposed, and following is a summary of the architectural features. The solid brick and mortar walls are built on a broad and stepped foundation (lower-level stones and mortar; upper-level bricks and mortar); the angular ends of the entrance show the same architectural brick features as noted in the narthex, that is, defined by two half-cylindrical buttresses and a triangular brick element between them (Ricci 2019a: 84-85). The entrance was paved with rectangular-in-shape marble slabs (their imprints visible on the mortar floor)15.

  • Areas in Q H6 where the human skeletons were removed during the 2016 season were cleaned and further excavated during the 2017 season. The layer containing the skeletons (US 2612) cuts into the platform’s earth fill, and there appear not to be any traces of floor above the earth fill itself. It is likely that the burials may have taken place after construction of the church had been completed, with the purpose of arranging burials around the church’s apses, a practice common in Byzantine-period monastic complexes (Talbot 1987)

  • USM 2632 was cleared. This is later wall (ca. 1.5 x 0.40) running parallel to the church’s northern entrance northern wall and continuing into the unexcavated portion of I6. As for other late structures on the platform, this wall was built with irregular stone blocks, whiter color mortar and the absence of brick elements. A small-sized marble column fragment, inserted vertically, is part of the wall.

13Some preliminary working hypothesis might be drawn. The northern lateral entrance to the church was built concurrently with the ecclesiastical building. It is likely that in the middle Byzantine period the area between the northern apse of the monastic church and the lateral entrance may have served as a burial space. At the moment one masonry burial and possibly two or more very disturbed burials in wooden coffins have been detected. In the late Byzantine period, likely from the 12th - early 13th century the area in question was used for productive or storage purposes.

Church excavation

  • 16 The other church that has been convincingly dated to this century is the Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii; s (...)
  • 17 We are grateful to Prof. Dr. Z. Ahunbay, who serves as the conservation advisor to the project and (...)
  • 18 M. Capardoni headed the team working in this area.

14The 2014-2015 seasons allowed commencement of investigations of the focal building within the monastery of Satyros, its katholikon, or the monastic church. The hagiographical text of the Vita Ignatii confirms that the church was dedicated to St. Michael and that the monastic complex, along with the church, was built by patriarch Ignatios between 867 and 877 CE that is during his second tenure at the patriarchal seat (Smithies 2013: col. 496 D.7-497 A.4). The relevance of the church’s excavation is twofold. On the one hand, it represents the opportunity to investigate the architecture and decoration of an ecclesiastical building now securely dated to the 9th century, a period which sees hardly any other surviving structures in the city of Constantinople and its immediate vicinities16. On the other, full-fledged excavation of the church and of its surrounding areas has become a necessity in order to implement a conservation program for it and for the underneath cistern. Although the current state of the cistern does not seem to indicate an imminent threat to its structures (both in the western area where the roofing system collapsed and in the eastern area where the surviving central dome and its annexed spaces support the church on the platform), preliminary assessments by conservation specialists outlined a course of action17. The recommendation was based on models of force-stress diagrams of the cistern, earth fill and vaulted surfaces, which concluded that continuation of the church’s excavation should have proceeded from its central areas corresponding to the cistern’s central dome area. These areas corresponded to quadrants F6-F7 and to the building’s naos18. The archaeological setting inside the church can be summarized as follows (Fig. 3, 4, 11):

  • Some 12 phases of action were identified in this portion of the building, the first representing the construction of the church, which was structurally bonded to the cistern.

  • The building’s floor has largely vanished, leaving either small traces of marble pavement by the massive corner piers marking the naos or mortar imprints where it was spoliated. As excavation of the naos progressed, it was possible to ascertain that in its original phase the floor had an opus sectile decoration which included a large central marble disk located underneath the church’s main dome and whose presence was evident from the mortar imprint.

  • It is likely that at least 5 phases of actions postdated the dismissal of the liturgical function of the building in this specific area.

  • A floor made of reused materials – largely bricks – was laid above the spoliated floor.

  • The naos itself was, at a late time, redesigned with likely partition walls made in a coarse technique.

  • Several pits were excavated. One of them in front of the southeast pillar (USM 2415). They all appear to bear the qualities of robbery trenches for the extraction of building materials by “treasure hunters”. The largest of them (US 2402) extends nearly across most of the naos and reaches the floor’s mortar preparation.

    • 19 O. D. Aslaner headed the team working in this area.

    Excavation of Q H6 in the church’s northern entrance was completed in 2017, with work continuing in Q G6 corresponding to the interior of the building19. The entrance into the northern apse was cleared, and remains of a door were clearly detected. The northern corridor leading into the naos was excavated as well. There, although no traces of opus sectile floors were noted on the mortar, with the likelihood that this space’s floor must have been paved by large-sized marble slabs, a low marble step was recorded by the entrance into the naos.

    • 20 M. Capardoni headed the team working in this area.

    Work in Q F6-F7 continued, allowing for exposure of the dome’s southwestern pilaster as well as full exposure of the northwestern pilaster20. It was also possible to reach the original floor lever – or traces thereof – of the church in the entire area. Spoliation pits cut into the mortar preparation layer of the church’s original opus sectile floor were rather widespread. At least three fragments of inscribed marble cornices were retrieved during the excavation (Fig. 20, 21, 21a). The archaeological situation noted during excavation of the naos in 2016 was confirmed during the 2017 season.

Fig. 20: Church, a selection of architectural sculpture retrieved during excavation inside the church, 2016 season

Fig. 20: Church, a selection of architectural sculpture retrieved during excavation inside the church, 2016 season

Photo by: D. Ventura, KYPA archives

Fig. 21: Church, detail of marble inscribed cornice with traces of blue colour (US 2419), 2017 season, Middle Byzantine

Fig. 21: Church, detail of marble inscribed cornice with traces of blue colour (US 2419), 2017 season, Middle Byzantine

Photo by: D. Ventura, KYAP archives

Fig. 21a: Church, detail of inscribed marble cornice

Fig. 21a: Church, detail of inscribed marble cornice

Photo by: D. Ventura, KYAP archives

  • The near absence of a floor, the presence of robbery trenches and a general degraded structure encouraged the implementation of a conservation roof that, at the end of the excavation season, would have protected the church and the cistern from water infiltrations.

15In general, excavation of portions of the naos indicated an archaeological context similar to the one observed in the northwestern chapel (Q G7), that is: absence of any traces of upper vaulting and of roofing elements; hardly any detectable traces of liturgical usage both for the time of construction of the church and for the Komnenian phase, when the monastery of Satyros was connected to the Pantokrator monastery; intense spoliation which did likely take place in the late Byzantine period; a low percentage of ceramic materials in the fill; some architectural sculpture fragments chronologically linked to the two main phases of the building (Ricci 2018: 373-374. On the architectural sculpture, Pedone 2018). Unlike excavation, in quadrant G7, corresponding to the northwestern chapel, the percentages of loose mosaic tesserae and of small-sized wall mosaic fragments was much lower in the naos area. From an architectural standpoint, excavation of the church is clarifying details about the building’s floor plan, something that had been hypothesized during the survey seasons through clearance of walls’ surfaces. The building fits within the cross-domed type with a tripartite sanctuary, isolated northern and southern apses likely functioning as chapels (Ricci 2018: 368-373). The main apse is flanked on both sides by rectangular in plan spaces which did not communicate with the northern and southern apses. Lateral entrances, one of which was fully excavated, provided access to the building along with a vanished and more articulated western entrance. The naos, revealed in part during the excavation campaigns, is confirmed as the largest space of the building with no surviving traces of the dome structure. The monastic vocation of the building is also confirmed by the burials identified outside the church by the northern apse and by the secondary burial represented by the ossuarium inside the narthex.

Conservation

2.1. Temporary protective roof

16At the end of the 2015 season a conservation report prepared by Prof. Dr. Zeynep Ahunbay recommended protection for the dome of the cistern’s closed area and its walls from rainwater dripping through the fill of the church above (Ahunbay et al. 2019). In consultation with the Istanbul Archaeological Museums and the 5 No.lu Koruma Kurulu, a temporary protective roof was identified as a feasible option. This, with the understanding that data collected would further a full-fledged excavation of the church, would help define a more permanent conservation policy both for the church and for the cistern underneath it. Therefore, at the end of the 2016 season a conservation roof was installed above the excavated areas of the church and extended to cover the cistern’s outer walls. The roof project, prepared by Arch. Mehmet S. Bermek, allows for modular extensions that can eventually extend over the entire surface of the church and the cistern’s outer walls. The roof’s inclination was also carefully calculated in order to allow for water and snow to flow well beyond the cistern’s perimetral walls (Fig. 22-23).

Fig. 22: Church, temporary conservation roof seen from southeast, 2017 season

Fig. 22: Church, temporary conservation roof seen from southeast, 2017 season

KYAP archives

Fig. 23: Church, temporary conservation roof, interior, 2017 season

Fig. 23: Church, temporary conservation roof, interior, 2017 season

KYAP archives

17The excavated areas of the church showed walls built with a solid brick and mortar technique. After excavation walls and floors were exposed to weather conditions that the roof alone could not entirely prevent. Therefore, the church’s walls and floors were covered by geotextile, while more vulnerable portions of the floors, including robbery trenches that after excavation left the walls’ foundations and the cistern’s roofing system exposed, were also protected by bags filled with lightweight material.

  • 21 Arch. E. Balcı coordinated the team working on the roof.

18Simultaneously, periodic monitoring of the cistern’s closed-area humidity was initiated. Monitoring showed a substantial decrease of humidity across the cistern’s eastern portion. However, hardly any humidity decrease was noted in the southern portion of the cistern, where the roof was absent and where excavations had not yet started. It was therefore decided to add one modular element to the south at the end of the 2017 season. Following installation of this additional element, the roof placed above the church amounted to ca. 500 square meters21. Throughout 2017 and 2018 monitoring showed a noticeable decrease in humidity throughout the domed area of the cistern.

Conservation (capping) work

  • 22 The conservation team was followed by Prof. Dr. Z. Ahunbay and headed by T. Özgür. We are grateful (...)
  • 23 The conservation laboratory was set up with support from ISTKA (Istanbul Development Agency) and Ko(...)

19During all excavation seasons the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark team also included a conservation team responsible for the conservation of movable finds and for on-site conservation22. The movable-finds conservation laboratory occupies one room in the ArkeoPark’s offices, with a container placed at the northern edges of the archaeological area used for on-site work23.

20As exposure of architectural features at Küçükyalı continued with the progress of the excavations, the question of their preservation and presentation in situ has come to represent an important aspect of the archaeological research project as well as of the ArkeoPark’s mission. First and foremost, the need for walls providing shelter from the effects of weather and human vandalism was identified. Therefore, a short-term conservation plan was devised in agreement with the Istanbul Archaeological Museums and with the 5 No.lu Koruma Kurulu to address the immediate needs of the site (Fig. 24). This plan focused firstly on the crests of masonry and brick and on brick walls exposed during excavation and their direct exposure to thermal, climatic biodeteriorators and urban pollution agents. A system of “capping” the walls’ crests, which would have not altered the visual impact and interpretation of the site, was seen as a suitable option. Capping, or hard capping, made of a few centimeters of consolidated mortar blended with other bonding materials has proved an effective conservation tool for walls’ crests in Mediterranean and similar climates. Capping has the advantage of being reversible, and it can be patched and repaired with the passage of time and at minimal cost. As the main bonding agent of all walls at Küçükyalı is represented by mortar, systematic sampling and analysis of mortar was conducted by KUDEB laboratories in Istanbul (Güleç et al. 2015). Once the aggregates were identified, a series of off-site trials were conducted. Prior to capping the walls, with the support of the İstanbul Restorasyon ve Konservasyon Merkez ve Bölge Laboratuvar, over the course of two consecutive seasons it was possible to complete removal of all modern graffiti from the site’s walls. This was done without the use of chemicals or additives. At this stage, the architectural features of the platform’s northern retaining walls and the northern walls of the complex were ready to undergo capping conservation. Capping was refreshed, re-patched and completed throughout the northern portion of the archaeological area during the 2016 and 2017 seasons.

Fig. 24: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, removal of modern graffiti in monastic platform’s northern retaining walls; mortar sampling of church’s external plaster revetment and capping procedures on northern retaining walls, 2016 and 2017 seasons

Fig. 24: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, removal of modern graffiti in monastic platform’s northern retaining walls; mortar sampling of church’s external plaster revetment and capping procedures on northern retaining walls, 2016 and 2017 seasons

Photographs by: I. Baysaling for KYAP

21In 2017, after completion of capping on the northern side of the complex, work began on the western side of the area corresponding to the cistern’s external wall and the platform’s retaining wall. Here, the buttressed wall system holds the platform’s earth fill. The building technique shows, as in other parts of the complex’s lowers features – that is, excluding the church on the complex’s platform – bands of brick and mortar courses alternating with bands of roughly cut local stone. The brick bands span the entire section of the wall and have shown a stronger resilience. The ashlar stone bands have, in some areas, lost their consistency or have been spoliated, showing a fair degree of deterioration (Q H14-M14). A trial patching of the stone bands on the western wall of the complex (Q M14-I14) was carried out using where necessary ashlar stones and brick retrieved from the excavation with the mortar blend as per the KUDEB analyses. The resetting of the wall in this area will prevent the platform’s earth fill from percolating through the missing parts of the ashlar stone bands and enhance the integrity of the retaining wall in this area. This method has thus far proved to be resilient to weather and pollution.

Conservation project for the cistern

  • 24 The 3D laser scan program was carried out by Imge Haritası and supported by ISTKA (Istanbul Develop (...)
  • 25 The team is formed of: Prof. Dr. Z. Ahunbay and the author (scientific coordinators); Arch. A. Özsa (...)

22Documentation work also included a full-fledged 3D laser scan program for the hypogeal cistern that was carried out between 2014 and 201524. This formed the basis on which, along with data collected during the conservation program described above and mortar analyses, it was possible to define a comprehensive conservation program for the entirety of the cistern. At the end of the 2018 excavation season, a conservation team headed by Prof. Dr. Zeynep Ahunbay begun work on the conservation project25. The project took into consideration the cistern’s state of conservation, its structural correlation with other architectural features of the site and its function within the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark.

23The western section of the cistern, currently open to the air, was covered in antiquity by four parallel rows of brick domes extending some 2.80m. Traces of those domes are still visible at the corners of the cistern, the most prominent of which is in the northeastern corner (Q G8). Above it are the scant remains of the church’s narthex. During the 2016 season a scaffolding was placed underneath the brick dome in order to eliminate tree roots, which have produced substantial anthropic damages to the structure, and to support the brick dome. Conservation of this section is one of the project’s priorities.

24The eastern section of the cistern, which is connected to the western section by means of two archways, retains its original roofing system. It is roughly square in plan and at its center is a brick dome measuring some 6.8m in diameter. The central space is framed by a vaulted gallery. Above it are the remains of the monastic church, now covered by a temporary conservation roof. To the east of the vaulted gallery is the water inflow channel of the cistern. For this section of the cistern the statical assessment concluded that there are no imminent risks of collapse and that there is no evidence of structural deterioration. The positive results yielded by the temporary conservation roof have prevented structural deterioration of this space.

  • 26 A comprehensive publication on the conservation project of the cistern is in preparation. The conse (...)

25The conservation project also addressed consolidation of the waterproof plaster revetments covering the cistern’s walls and identified areas in which mild resetting of the walls, following the technique implemented in Q M14-I14, will be beneficial to the structure. While these conservation aspects formed the core of the project, attention was also paid to the presentation and interpretation of the space for visitors. This is an important consideration as the cistern represents the feature most sought-after by visitors to the archaeological site. As an underground space, the cistern at Küçükyalı is embedded in the cultural memories and urban legends of the neighborhood’s residents (Ricci et al. 2015: 1). To summarize, some of the principles adopted included: interventions where necessary on structural consolidation of the area; making the space safe and suitable for visitors; presenting the cistern within the context of the site and of the surviving ecological environment. A general consensus was that preserving both the cistern’s western open area within its green natural setting – a rare case of survival in the city of Istanbul – and the unexcavated cistern’s fill with collapsed vaults elements seemed a reasonable option. This section of the cistern is accessible from the west, that is, directly from a road and from the Visitors and Community Center and the Dig House by means of a post-Byzantine opening into its retaining wall, making it suitable for visits and cultural events. The conservation project was presented to the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums (Kültür Varlıkları ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlüğü) on October 10, 201926.

Archaeology as Heritage and Public Archaeology

26The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark Project has, from its outset, developed a heritage awareness vocation as part of its activities. Among the oftentimes conflicting values that orient work carried out at the ArkeoPark are the following: the question of “ownership” of the past; the vulnerability of contested and conquered heritage, including the Byzantine heritage in contemporary Istanbul; issues of land ownership, development and urban regeneration in the metropolitan areas of Istanbul; the survival and public enjoyment of the archaeological remains that form sought-after green areas in Istanbul. While we recognize that the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark represents a small-sized, “stand-alone,” public-awareness archaeological project in Istanbul, public archaeology in Turkey is becoming increasingly widespread, with notable progress registered in urban archaeology projects.

  • 27 The title of the project: Çağdaş Yaratıcılık İçin Geçmişin İzleri: Kentsel Arkeoloji ve Küçükyalı A (...)

27At the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark its public archaeology programs as well as the more technical framework of the archaeological area’s site management plan have benefited from two consecutive grants by the Istanbul Development Agency (ISTKA), a governmental body27. This support is an important development in official attitudes towards public archaeology in Istanbul and an indication that more projects in the city may benefit from similar forms of aid. The practical application of public archaeology programs at the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark placed us in a better position to reach out to the local inhabitants of a neighborhood whose establishment dates back to the 1970s-1980s. This also led to a reciprocal awareness whereby concerns about possible property loss as a consequence of the excavation were addressed in community meetings and other forms of communication. We also recognize that, as recently pointed out by Akira Matsuda, public archaeology carries first and foremost a crucial practical aspect (Matsuda 2019: 13). This is the approach we have maintained throughout our engagement with the site. Work carried out with the support of ISTKA focused on education (Fig. 25), community development, public relations and site preservation. The impact of our programs was greatly enhanced by the fact that, on a yearly basis, two to three months of archaeological and site conservation activities were ongoing where those very programs were taking place. In our experience, archaeology and on-site work, particularly within urban contexts, represent fundamental catalysts for the success of public archaeology work. The practical aspect of public archaeology finds sustenance in the practical manifestations of archaeological work, particularly when the latter is made visible to the public in a transparent form of communication through social media, but also through free daily guided tours and direct contact with the processes of excavation, documentation and conservation.

Fig. 25: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, a mock excavation in a sand box placed next to the excavation is part of the elementary schools educational program, 2016 season

Fig. 25: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, a mock excavation in a sand box placed next to the excavation is part of the elementary schools educational program, 2016 season

KYAP archives

28Another element contributed to the success of Küçükyalı’s public archaeology programs, fostered a more informative and participatory approach and also established a sense of place, a sense of “being active” in an archaeological area: the construction of the two buildings mentioned at the beginning of this presentation – the Visitors and Community Center and the Dig House (Fig. 26). The lightweight, reversible wooden structures, equipped with access ramps for the disabled and set in a natural green landscape designed with autochthonous plants, are located at the western edges of the archaeological area and along a street. The buildings are also visually connected with the “ruins”, with archaeology, since they face the western retaining wall of the monastic platform and the post-Byzantine piercing of the cistern’s wall, which is now the access point to the cistern.

Fig. 26: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, Visitors and Community Center in the foreground and ArkeoPark Dig House and Offices in the background

Fig. 26: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, Visitors and Community Center in the foreground and ArkeoPark Dig House and Offices in the background

Project by: Atölye Mimarlık; photo: KYAP archives, 2018

29The building became fully operational in 2016 and the ISTKA-funded project allowed us to begin integration of the buildings within public archaeology programs. Following is a summary of some of the principal activities that have taken place at the site and have focused on the integration of spaces and enhancing a more pluralist approach towards public archaeology. With this approach we have diversified our range of activities to include what we would define as the “informed public”, also as university-level archaeology, architectural and urban planning students. At the same time, we have also developed educational models aimed at inclusiveness in terms of age groups and educational backgrounds, such as elementary school programs (Fig. 25) and short documentaries for adults. Following is a selection of some of the public and educational activities carried out within the two ISTKA grants:

  • Archaeological Photography Workshop” (15-16.06; 23-24.06.2016). The workshop was run by professional retired photographer Mr. Turhan Bingili and was open to 15 archaeology students at Turkish universities. It comprised two days of theory and two days of practice both at the site and with mock finds. At the end of the course the students received a certificate.

  • A site-specific installation titled: “Rising a…small height from the ground by artist Hera Büyüktaşçıyan (20.07-02.09.2016). This 28m site-specific rope installation originated from the cistern’s inflow channel and extended into the cistern as a contemporary interpretation of Byzantine-period opus sectile floors with fantastic creatures (Fig. 27).

Fig. 27: Cistern, site-specific installation “Rising a…small height from the ground” by artist Hera Büyüktaşçıyan. The rope installation originates from the cistern’s inflow channel and extendes into the cistern as a contemporary interpretation of Byzantine-period opus sectile floors with fantastic creatures

Fig. 27: Cistern, site-specific installation “Rising a…small height from the ground” by artist Hera Büyüktaşçıyan. The rope installation originates from the cistern’s inflow channel and extendes into the cistern as a contemporary interpretation of Byzantine-period opus sectile floors with fantastic creatures

Photo by: D. Ventura, 2016

  • A four-series documentary film centering on the site directed by Serkan Taycan. The documentaries are shown at the Visitors and Community Center and are visible on the project’s YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/​channel/​UChi0FOwnnAmb-ItEgfxghiQ)

  • Continuation of an education program for schoolchildren; free guided tours of the site; workshops for university students; training courses for women organized by the local Muhtarlık and hosted at the Visitors’ Center.

  • 28 I. Baysaling headed the team working on public archaeology and was responsible for preparation of t (...)
  • 29 Based on visitors’ data collected during visits. Pro-capita green space in Istanbul is currently ca (...)
  • 30 The Site Management Plan (SMP) for the site was submitted to the General Directorate of Cultural He (...)

30Although governmental funding for public archaeology activities substantially decreased during 2017, several activities continued to be carried out28. Throughout the excavation season, free daily guided tours of the site attracted numerous visitors. The same took place before and after the excavation season, making the site open to visitors on a year-round basis. The ArkeoPark has become a point of interest particularly for residents in the city of Istanbul, university students, schoolchildren and specialists29. Furthermore, the ArkeoPark’s ecologically driven buildings continue to represent a point of reference for larger and diverse groups who see in these spaces and the nearby archaeological area a much-needed green recreational area in Greater Metropolitan Istanbul. The ArkeoPark therefore caters to a growing urban constituency, confirming that Istanbul should develop a legislative framework for the establishment of urban archaeological parks connected to a natural environment (Fig. 16)30

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Ahunbay, Z., Ricci, A., Özsavaşcı, A., Almaç, U. and Balcı, E. 2019: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark. Sarniç Rölöve ve Konservasyion Projesi. Rölöve ve Konservasiyon Raporları, Istanbul: Unpublished Report Submitted to the General Directorate for Antiquities and Monuments (Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism).

Gülersoy, N.Z., Ricci, A., Akarca, H., Balcı, E., and Kargül, O., 2019: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark Alan Yönetim Planı, Istanbul: Unpublished Report Submitted to the General Directorate for Antiquities and Monuments (Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism): 1-187.

Günsenin, N., 2018: “La typologie des amphores Günsenin: Un mise au point nouvelle”, Anatolia Antiqua, XXVI: 89-124.

Günsenin, N., and Ricci A., 2018:Les amphores Günsenin IV a Küçükyalı: Un voyage entre monastères?, Anatolia Antiqua, XXVI: 125-139.

Jordan, R., 2000: ‘Pantokrator : Typikon of emperor John II Komnenos for the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople’, translated by Jordan, R., in, Thomas, J. and Constantinides Hero, A. (eds.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C., vol. 3: 724-781.

Güleç, A., et al., (eds.) 2015: Küçükyalı Arkeopark Kuzey Duvarı Koruma Onarım Projesi Restorasyon Konservasyon Raporu, TC İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediye Başkanlığı, Kültür Varlıkları Daire Başkanlığı Koruma Uygulama ve Denetim Müdürlüğü (KUDEB), Istanbul: 1-18.

Marinis, V., 2009: Tombs and Burials in the Monastery tou Libos in Constantinople”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63: 147-166.

Matsuda, A., 2019: “A consideration of public archaeology theories”, in Gürsu I. (ed.) Public Archaeology. Theoretical Approaches and Current Practices, British Institute at Ankara, Monograph 52, Ankara: 13-20.

Pedone, S., 2018: “The Sculpture from Küçükyalı and Their Archaeological Context”, Bizantinistica. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi, XIX: 377-390.

Ricci, A., 2019a: “The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark (Istanbul), 2014-2015: Excavation, Conservation and Public Archaeology”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 40, 1: 79-102.

Ricci, A., 2019b: “Tra spiritualità, sussistenza e scambio: il monastero di Satyros (Küçükyalı, Istanbul) nei periodi Medio e Tardo bizantino/ Maneviyat, geçim ve ticaret: Orta ve Geç Bizans döneminde Satyros manastırı (Küçükyalı, İstanbul)”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 160: 129-140.

Ricci, A., 2018: “Rediscovery of the Patriarchal Monastery of Satyros (Küçükyalı, Istanbul): Architecture, Archaeology and Hagiography”, Bizantinistica. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi, 19: 347-376.

Ricci, A., 2015: “Contesti funerari bizantini e loro archeologia a Küçükyalı (Istanbul): considerazioni preliminari / Küçükyalı’da Bizans mezar kontekstleri ve arkeolojisi: ilk değerlendirmeler”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 148: 177-190.

Ricci, A., 2012: “Left Behind: Small Sized Objects from the Middle Byzantine Monastic Complex of Satyros (Küçükyalı, Istanbul)”, in Böhlendorf- Arslan B. and Ricci A. (eds.), Byzantine Small Finds in Archaeological Contexts, BYZAS 15, Istanbul 2012: 147-161.

Ricci, A., Bilgin, I., Polat, B., Metin, A.B., and Ekși, E., 2015: Geçmișten Geleceğe Miras. Küçükyalı ArkeoPark. Kültürel Miras Eğitim Kitapçığı (8-12 yaş), Istanbul.

Ricci, A., and Yılmaz, A., 2016: “Urban Archaeology and Community Engagement: the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark”, in Alvarez, M., Yuksel, M. and Go, F. (eds.), Heritage Tourism Destinations: Preservation, Communication and Development, Oxon: 41-62.

Ricci, A., and Wohmann, R., 2018: “Byzantine Contexts from the Asian Suburbs of Constantinople: Preliminary Remarks on the Ceramics and Archaeology at the Küçükyali ArkeoPark (Istanbul),” in Yenişehirlioğlu, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Congress AIECM3 on Medieval and Modern Period Mediterranean Ceramics, Antalya, 19-24 October 2015, Koç University VEKAM, vol. 1, Ankara: 453-458.

Ricci, A., and Wohmann R., (forthcoming): “A Late Byzantine refuse disposal from Küçükyalı (Istanbul): context and content”, in Petridis P. (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th International Congress AIECM3 on Medieval and Modern Period Mediterranean Ceramics, Athens, 21-27 October 2018.

Smithies, A., 2013: Niketas David Paphlago. The life of Patriarch Ignatius, text and translation by Smithies A., with notes by Duffy J.M., Dumbarton Oaks Texts 13, Washington D.C.

Stubbs, J.H., 1995: “Protection and Preservation of Excavated Structures” in Prince, S.N.P. (ed.) Conservation of Archaeological Excavations. With Particular Reference to the Mediterranean Area, 2nd Ed., ICCROM, Rome: 73-90.

Theis, L., 2005: Flankenräume im mittelbyzantinischen Kirchenbau Wiesbaden 2005.

Talbot, A.M., 1987: “An Introduction to Byzantine Monasticism”, Illinois Classical Studies, 12,2: 229-241.

Wohmann, R., 2018: “The Ceramics Found at Küçükyalı: preliminary Consideration”, Bizantinistica. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi, 19: 391-402.

Haut de page

Notes

1 For a recent summary of the complex’s chronological phases and interpretation, Ricci 2018: 347-376; Ricci 2019a: 79-102.

2 The coordinates for the site are: 40° 56´ 35.9556" and 29° 6´ 53.3484

3 The architectural project for the site was approved by the 5 No.lu Koruma Kurulu in May 2015, Ricci 2019: 89-90.

4 The buildings are part of the ArkeoPark’s architectural project commissioned by Koç University to Atölye Mimarlık architects http://atolyemimarlik.com/anasayfa/mimarlik/ (downloaded on, 23.08.2019).

5 Dr. E. E. Intagliata headed the team working in this area with archaeologists B. Polat and P. Maranzana and students E. Baran Engin and A. Altınel.

6 For an in-depth discussion of this and other Günsenin IV amphorae excavated at the site, Günsenin and Ricci 2018: 125-139.

7 A. Urcia headed the team working in this area in 2010.

8 R. Wohmann headed the team working in this area with students E. Ekin Baran and S. Sterling.

9 The 2001-2004 survey season was conducted through permission from the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums and directed by the author.

10 I thank R. Wohmann for his report on the ceramics and for his work on the piece.

11 I am grateful to Dr. A. C. Antonaras (Museum of Byzantine Culture, Thessaloniki) for his work on the glass finds from this and other areas at Küçükyalı.

12 Work was conducted by Dr. Burhan Ulaş (Malatya Inönü University).

13 I thank Prof. Dr. N. Günsenin for the identification of the amphora. For an updated discussion of the Günsenin typology, Günsenin 2018.

14 I am grateful to Dr. Y. Yılmaz from Düzce University for her careful work and for the report. The team was also composed of archaeologist N. Lordoğlu and conservator T. Özgür.

15 O. D. Aslaner headed the team working in this area.

16 The other church that has been convincingly dated to this century is the Atik Mustafa Paşa Camii; see, Theis 2005: 40-55.

17 We are grateful to Prof. Dr. Z. Ahunbay, who serves as the conservation advisor to the project and to Arch. M. S. Bermek for his work on the force-stress diagrams of the cistern.

18 M. Capardoni headed the team working in this area.

19 O. D. Aslaner headed the team working in this area.

20 M. Capardoni headed the team working in this area.

21 Arch. E. Balcı coordinated the team working on the roof.

22 The conservation team was followed by Prof. Dr. Z. Ahunbay and headed by T. Özgür. We are grateful to the İstanbul Restorasyon ve Konservasyon Merkez ve Bölge Laboratuvar, its Director A. Osman Avşar and his staff for their continuous support.

23 The conservation laboratory was set up with support from ISTKA (Istanbul Development Agency) and Koç University. The Maltepe Municipality provided the container.

24 The 3D laser scan program was carried out by Imge Haritası and supported by ISTKA (Istanbul Development Agency).

25 The team is formed of: Prof. Dr. Z. Ahunbay and the author (scientific coordinators); Arch. A. Özsavaşcı (project designer and owner); Dr. İnş. Müh. U. Almaç, Istanbul Technical University (statical report); Arch. E. Balcı (project coordinator).

26 A comprehensive publication on the conservation project of the cistern is in preparation. The conservation project was approved by the 5 No.lu Koruma Kurulu on January 10, 2020.

27 The title of the project: Çağdaş Yaratıcılık İçin Geçmişin İzleri: Kentsel Arkeoloji ve Küçükyalı ArkeoPark Projesi (TR10-15YGK-0023), dates: 01.09.2015-31.08.2016. Project’s Principal Investigator (PI) A. Ricci, Project Manager (PM), E. Balci; Sürdürülebilir Kentsel Arkeoloji Deneyimi: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark (TR10/14/TMK/0049), dates: 01.09.2014- 31.08.2015. Project's Principal Investigator (PI) A. Ricci, Project Manager (PM), E. Balci.

28 I. Baysaling headed the team working on public archaeology and was responsible for preparation of the ArkeoPark newsletters, social media, free guided tours, and schoolchildren’s visits.

29 Based on visitors’ data collected during visits. Pro-capita green space in Istanbul is currently calculated at 1.2 sqm per 1000 inhabitants, see (http://www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/data/of-public-green-space-parks-and-gardens)

30 The Site Management Plan (SMP) for the site was submitted to the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums on, 17.07.2019 and approved by the Istanbul 5. No.lu Koruma Kurulu (Council for the Conservation of Cultural Property) on, 07.11.2019, see: Gülersoy et al. 2019.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1: Plan of the Asian suburbs of Constantinople in Byzantine times
Crédits After: Janin 1964, Pl. XIII, redrawn by author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 400k
Titre Fig. 2: Drone image of the complex at Küçükyalı - monastery of Satyros - and of its surroundings, 2017 season
Crédits KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 548k
Titre Fig. 3: General plan of the complex at Küçükyalı - monastery of Satyros - as of 2018 excavation season
Crédits Drawn by: A. Özsavaşcı for KYAP
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 232k
Titre Fig. 4: Plan of underground cistern, inflow channel to the east and platform’s retaining walls with buttressed corner towers, 2018 season
Crédits Drawn by: A. Özsavaşcı for KYAP
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 148k
Titre Fig. 5: Plan of northeastern corner of the monastic platform. The orthophoto indicates the late Byzantine phase of the complex in this area with the location of the refuse disposal
Crédits 2016 season, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 984k
Titre Fig. 6: Unglazed cooking pot found in the refuse disposal; archaeological context US 1510; after conservation and drawing
Crédits Drawn by: E. Pamukcu and M. Duggan, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 176k
Titre Fig. 7: Chamber in the southeastern corner of the monastic platform, stratigraphical sequence and section drawing of 2016 excavation
Crédits Drawn by: V. Indere and R. Wohmann, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,2M
Titre Fig. 8: Chamber in the southeastern corner of the monastic platform: collapsed roof; collapsed northern wall and eastern segment of chamber with section of collapsed roof and wall
Crédits Drawn by: V. Indere and R. Wohmann, 2016 season, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 264k
Titre Fig. 9: Hypothetical reconstruction of chamber’s roof
Crédits R. Whomann and A. Ricci, 2016 season, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 3,1M
Titre Fig. 10: Bone applique, chamber (US 1203- Seg. 2) after conservation
Crédits Conservation by: T. Özgür, photography by D. Ventura, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-10.png
Fichier image/png, 2,1M
Titre Fig. 11: Drone image of the church (left) and of the western portion of the cistern (right) at the end of the 2017 excavation season
Crédits KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,1M
Titre Fig. 12: Northern lateral entrance into the monastic church after removal of top layer
Crédits 2016 season, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-12.png
Fichier image/png, 1,6M
Titre Fig. 13: Church area: Elaborate Incised Ware bowl (US 1510), Late Byzantine
Crédits 2016 season, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-13.png
Fichier image/png, 829k
Titre Fig. 14: Church area: Glass window pane (US 2612), Middle Byzantine (?), 2016 season
Crédits Conservation by: T. Özgür, reconstruction by A. Andonaras, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-14.png
Fichier image/png, 906k
Titre Fig. 15: Church area, masonry burial and Günsenin III amphora with cranial remains
Crédits 2018 season, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-15.png
Fichier image/png, 967k
Titre Fig. 16: Church area, plan of area with superimposed orthophoto of burial
Crédits Drawing by: A. Özsavaşcı for KYAP
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 288k
Titre Fig. 17: Church area, the Günsenin III amphora with cranial remains prior removal
Crédits 2018 season, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-17.png
Fichier image/png, 3,1M
Titre Fig. 18: Church area, the masonry burial at the end of the excavation
Crédits Photo by: D. Ventura, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-18.png
Fichier image/png, 1,3M
Titre Fig. 19
Légende A-B-C-D: Soil samples obtained by means of a “judgement sampling” strategy were subject to flotation, using a “hand flotation” method, through sieves with 3 mm, > 0.5 mm and > 0.3 mm mesh. Samples were dried out to in a location not exposed to direct sun light. Subsequently the archaeobotanical samples are studied in the laboratory of the ALATA-Mersin horticultural institute and at archaeology laboratory of the Koç University. Some of the materials were also studied in the laboratory at the Küçükyalı ArkeoPark. E-F-G: Preliminary results of the archaeobotanical studies carried out at the Küçükyalı site indicate a closed monastic economy, where the cultivation of agricultural food products, such as wheat (E-G), and flax (F) was dominant
Crédits A-D: Photo by: I. Baysaling and D. Ventura; Drawing by: R. Üske; E-G: Ulaş 2017
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 300k
Titre Fig. 20: Church, a selection of architectural sculpture retrieved during excavation inside the church, 2016 season
Crédits Photo by: D. Ventura, KYPA archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-20.png
Fichier image/png, 1,2M
Titre Fig. 21: Church, detail of marble inscribed cornice with traces of blue colour (US 2419), 2017 season, Middle Byzantine
Crédits Photo by: D. Ventura, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-21.png
Fichier image/png, 1,2M
Titre Fig. 21a: Church, detail of inscribed marble cornice
Crédits Photo by: D. Ventura, KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-22.png
Fichier image/png, 1,4M
Titre Fig. 22: Church, temporary conservation roof seen from southeast, 2017 season
Crédits KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-23.png
Fichier image/png, 1,4M
Titre Fig. 23: Church, temporary conservation roof, interior, 2017 season
Crédits KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-24.png
Fichier image/png, 1,3M
Titre Fig. 24: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, removal of modern graffiti in monastic platform’s northern retaining walls; mortar sampling of church’s external plaster revetment and capping procedures on northern retaining walls, 2016 and 2017 seasons
Crédits Photographs by: I. Baysaling for KYAP
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,0M
Titre Fig. 25: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, a mock excavation in a sand box placed next to the excavation is part of the elementary schools educational program, 2016 season
Crédits KYAP archives
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 776k
Titre Fig. 26: Küçükyalı ArkeoPark, Visitors and Community Center in the foreground and ArkeoPark Dig House and Offices in the background
Crédits Project by: Atölye Mimarlık; photo: KYAP archives, 2018
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,2M
Titre Fig. 27: Cistern, site-specific installation “Rising a…small height from the ground” by artist Hera Büyüktaşçıyan. The rope installation originates from the cistern’s inflow channel and extendes into the cistern as a contemporary interpretation of Byzantine-period opus sectile floors with fantastic creatures
Crédits Photo by: D. Ventura, 2016
URL http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/docannexe/image/1204/img-28.png
Fichier image/png, 1,1M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Alessandra Ricci, « The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark (Istanbul), 2016-2018: Excavation, Conservation, Cultural Heritage and Public Archaeology »Anatolia Antiqua, XXVII | 2019, 255-277.

Référence électronique

Alessandra Ricci, « The Küçükyalı ArkeoPark (Istanbul), 2016-2018: Excavation, Conservation, Cultural Heritage and Public Archaeology »Anatolia Antiqua [En ligne], XXVII | 2019, mis en ligne le 31 janvier 2022, consulté le 22 mai 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/anatoliaantiqua/1204 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/anatoliaantiqua.1204

Haut de page

Auteur

Alessandra Ricci

Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Koç University, Rumeli Feneri Yolu, Sarıyer/İstanbul/Turkey
aricci@ku.edu.tr

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search